Grant Avenue, LLC v. New York Iron Works, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Grant Avenue, LLC v. New York Iron Works, Inc.

292 A.D.2d 176, 738 N.Y.S.2d 202, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2282

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 5, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 292 A.D.2d 176 (Grant Avenue, LLC v. New York Iron Works, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Grant Avenue, LLC v. New York Iron Works, Inc., 292 A.D.2d 176, 738 N.Y.S.2d 202, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2282 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.), entered July 2, 2001, which denied claimant Grant Avenue, LLC’s motion to discharge a mechanic’s lien held by respondent Cameo Electrical Company in the amount of $44,108, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to claimant Grant Avenue’s contention, Cameo Electrical Company’s mechanic’s lien was properly filed under Lien Law § 3, since the lease between Grant Avenue and its tenant required the tenant to effect the installations performed by the lien holder, Cameo, and the installations became part of the demised premises and ultimately inured to the Grant Avenue’s benefit (see, Paul Mock, Inc. v 118 E. 25th St. Realty Co., 87 AD2d 756, citing Rice v Culver, 172 NY 60, 65-66). That Grant Avenue was not in contractual privity with Cameo respecting the work for which payment is sought under the subject lien, does not, under the above described circumstances, vitiate the lien (see, Rainbow Elec. v Bloom, 132 AD2d 539). This is particularly so since Grant Avenue dealt directly with Cameo in connection with the work performed by Cameo upon its premises. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Rosenberger, Wallach and Buckley, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.), entered July 2, 2001, which denied claimant Grant Avenue, LLC’s motion to discharge a mechanic’s lien held by respondent Cameo Electrical Company in the amount of $44,108, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to claimant Grant Avenue’s contention, Cameo Electrical Company’s mechanic’s lien was properly filed under Lien Law § 3, since the lease between Grant Avenue and its tenant required the tenant to effect the installations performed by the lien holder, Cameo, and the installations became part of the demised premises and ultimately inured to the Grant Avenue’s benefit (see, Paul Mock, Inc. v 118 E. 25th St. Realty Co., 87 AD2d 756, citing Rice v Culver, 172 NY 60, 65-66). That Grant Avenue was not in contractual privity with Cameo respecting the work for which payment is sought under the subject lien, does not, under the above described circumstances, vitiate the lien (see, Rainbow Elec. v Bloom, 132 AD2d 539). This is particularly so since Grant Avenue dealt directly with Cameo in connection with the work performed by Cameo upon its premises. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Rosenberger, Wallach and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 176, 738 N.Y.S.2d 202, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grant-avenue-llc-v-new-york-iron-works-inc-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack